The issue is not poor quality software!!!!!
The problem is community management.
Panda was the standard way for installing Perl6 modules. It is embedded
in nearly all of the "travis.yml" modules in the Ecosystem.
I just fixed flaws in a module of mine, which began to *fail* the Travis
tests. It turned out that it wasn't my changes that caused the errors,
but that the Travis system could no longer access panda.
I notice that other Modules are now failing as well, eg., GTK::Simple. I
don't know because I don't have access to the error logs, but I do know
that it used panda at one time - because I used GTK::Simple as the
template for my module.
So the removal of panda and replacement by zef without thought for the
Ecosystem is a case of bad community management.
Another problem is the absence of Task::Star in the Ecosystem. When was
it removed? Why was it removed without any significant announcement?
Why is documentation on Rakudo - the lastest update even - still showing
that Task::Star should be installed, when Task::Star is not available on
the Ecosystem?
This is not a question about the quality of panda over zef.
Richard aka finanalyst
On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 03:07 AM, ToddAndMargo wrote:
On 05/23/2017 11:30 AM, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
On 23 May 2017, at 20:21, ToddAndMargo <toddandma...@zoho.com> wrote:
On 05/23/2017 10:47 AM, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
On 23 May 2017, at 19:23, ToddAndMargo <toddandma...@zoho.com> wrote:
On 05/23/2017 06:30 AM, Will Coleda wrote:
Removed? It's still available athttps://github.com/tadzik/panda …
It is on its way out. The developers over on the chat
line directed me to zef when I asked for help getting
panda working.
Panda stinks.
That's not really true or called for.
Panda is broken and not going to be repaired. The
developers on the chat line recommend zef instead.
Was polite enough?
Perhaps you should check out the section “The End of an Era” in
last weeks Perl 6 Weekly:
https://p6weekly.wordpress.com/2017/05/16/2017-20-crossing-the-alps/
You should realize that open source software is not made by robots
but by people. People for which keeping up with changes can take
more resources than they have at hand.
Also remember that without panda, I don’t think we would have had
an ecosystem out now as fleshed out as it is now.
So saying that certain software stinks, feels more like projection
than anything else. So yes, *I* think it was uncalled for.
Liz
Would substituting "broken" for "stinks" be polite enough?
IMO yes, because that would be factual.
Liz
Hi Liz,
I was using the meaning of "low or bad quality". I did
not mean the other meaning of a "foul odor". I was
trying to get to the point rapidly and to be of help.
I really wasn't meaning to denigrate anyone's work.
And, of course, Panda is not going to work right if
it is not being maintained, especially with the dizzying
(a good thing) pace of development on Perl 6.
And, Panda does not smell bad. Maybe. Okay, okay,
okay, it doesn't!
:-)
-T
